Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What's the difference: lives of negative value and lives of positive value
1 view
Skip to first unread message
dh
Apr 15, 2012, 3:49:23 PM4/15/12
to
Hi young people,
Sorry about the OT aspect for you sex groupers, but if you can think outside the
crotch for a sec maybe you can help too...there are just so damn many of you
compared to the other groups I wanted to include yours as well. Anyway, there's
a guy in the animals group who is an eliminationist (they like to be referred to
by the gross misnomer "animal rights a..." but eliminationist is much more
descriptive in regards to their objective towards domestic animals), a veg*n of
some sort, and claims to have a PhD in math, but he can't comprehend what it
means to have a life of positive value. For that reason of course he's clueless
as to any meaning to the distinction between the two completely different types
of situation.
"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Doctor Rupert
So I suggested that doc ask his dad, but his dad couldn't figure it out either.
The value we're referring to is in regards to value for the being who is
experiencing the life, not to the being's value to society or anything like
that....it is to the individual itself. I remember we studied that in regards to
slavery in the US by the time I was in sixth grade (maybe 5th but I forget), and
I was aware of it in regards to animals before that. I would like to ask in a
sixth grader ng, but didn't find any. So can any of you young older people
eplain the distinction in a way you think a guy with a PhD might be able to
comprehend...or/and do you know any little kids who can help a doctor out? It's
easy for me but he can't comprehend any of the information that my explanation
conveys, so he claims, so I'm hoping someone else can provide something that the
poor guy can handle.
Sorry about the OT aspect for you sex groupers, but if you can think outside the
crotch for a sec maybe you can help too...there are just so damn many of you
compared to the other groups I wanted to include yours as well. Anyway, there's
a guy in the animals group who is an eliminationist (they like to be referred to
by the gross misnomer "animal rights a..." but eliminationist is much more
descriptive in regards to their objective towards domestic animals), a veg*n of
some sort, and claims to have a PhD in math, but he can't comprehend what it
means to have a life of positive value. For that reason of course he's clueless
as to any meaning to the distinction between the two completely different types
of situation.
"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Doctor Rupert
So I suggested that doc ask his dad, but his dad couldn't figure it out either.
The value we're referring to is in regards to value for the being who is
experiencing the life, not to the being's value to society or anything like
that....it is to the individual itself. I remember we studied that in regards to
slavery in the US by the time I was in sixth grade (maybe 5th but I forget), and
I was aware of it in regards to animals before that. I would like to ask in a
sixth grader ng, but didn't find any. So can any of you young older people
eplain the distinction in a way you think a guy with a PhD might be able to
comprehend...or/and do you know any little kids who can help a doctor out? It's
easy for me but he can't comprehend any of the information that my explanation
conveys, so he claims, so I'm hoping someone else can provide something that the
poor guy can handle.
Message has been deleted
George Plimpton
Apr 15, 2012, 8:27:26 PM4/15/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convict, lied:
> Hi young people,
>
> Sorry about the OT aspect for you sex groupers, but
"Lives of positive value" just means *existence* for livestock in your
sick lexicon, Fuckwit.
> Hi young people,
>
> Sorry about the OT aspect for you sex groupers, but
sick lexicon, Fuckwit.
Rupert
Apr 15, 2012, 9:36:43 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 11:44 pm, pale male <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> know their lives have value, and I doubt they know whether that value
> is a positive or negative one. What you're saying is that these values
> are yours, not the animals. Any distinction between the two must be
> yours as well, because I doubt animals can make it.
> another.
Yes, quite, if he really had a meaningful distinction in mind you
would think he should be able to do that.
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:49:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> >Hi young people,
>
> >Sorry about the OT aspect for you sex groupers, but if you can think outside the
> >crotch for a sec maybe you can help too...there are just so damn many of you
> >compared to the other groups I wanted to include yours as well. Anyway, there's
> >a guy in the animals group who is an eliminationist (they like to be referred to
> >by the gross misnomer "animal rights a..." but eliminationist is much more
> >descriptive in regards to their objective towards domestic animals), a veg*n of
> >some sort, and claims to have a PhD in math, but he can't comprehend what it
> >means to have a life of positive value. For that reason of course he's clueless
> >as to any meaning to the distinction between the two completely different types
> >of situation.
>
> >"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> >"lives of negative value" means anything." - Doctor Rupert
>
> >So I suggested that doc ask his dad, but his dad couldn't figure it out either.
> >The value we're referring to is in regards to value for the being who is
> >experiencing the life, not to the being's value to society or anything like
> >that....it is to the individual itself.
>
> You can't get that kind of information from an animal. I doubt they
> >Hi young people,
>
> >Sorry about the OT aspect for you sex groupers, but if you can think outside the
> >crotch for a sec maybe you can help too...there are just so damn many of you
> >compared to the other groups I wanted to include yours as well. Anyway, there's
> >a guy in the animals group who is an eliminationist (they like to be referred to
> >by the gross misnomer "animal rights a..." but eliminationist is much more
> >descriptive in regards to their objective towards domestic animals), a veg*n of
> >some sort, and claims to have a PhD in math, but he can't comprehend what it
> >means to have a life of positive value. For that reason of course he's clueless
> >as to any meaning to the distinction between the two completely different types
> >of situation.
>
> >"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> >"lives of negative value" means anything." - Doctor Rupert
>
> >So I suggested that doc ask his dad, but his dad couldn't figure it out either.
> >The value we're referring to is in regards to value for the being who is
> >experiencing the life, not to the being's value to society or anything like
> >that....it is to the individual itself.
>
> know their lives have value, and I doubt they know whether that value
> is a positive or negative one. What you're saying is that these values
> are yours, not the animals. Any distinction between the two must be
> yours as well, because I doubt animals can make it.
>
> >I remember we studied that in regards to
> >slavery in the US by the time I was in sixth grade (maybe 5th but I forget), and
> >I was aware of it in regards to animals before that. I would like to ask in a
> >sixth grader ng, but didn't find any. So can any of you young older people
> >eplain the distinction in a way you think a guy with a PhD might be able to
> >comprehend...or/and do you know any little kids who can help a doctor out? It's
> >easy for me but he can't comprehend any of the information that my explanation
> >conveys, so he claims, so I'm hoping someone else can provide something that the
> >poor guy can handle.
>
> Define the terms and explain what makes them distinct from one
> >I remember we studied that in regards to
> >slavery in the US by the time I was in sixth grade (maybe 5th but I forget), and
> >I was aware of it in regards to animals before that. I would like to ask in a
> >sixth grader ng, but didn't find any. So can any of you young older people
> >eplain the distinction in a way you think a guy with a PhD might be able to
> >comprehend...or/and do you know any little kids who can help a doctor out? It's
> >easy for me but he can't comprehend any of the information that my explanation
> >conveys, so he claims, so I'm hoping someone else can provide something that the
> >poor guy can handle.
>
> another.
Yes, quite, if he really had a meaningful distinction in mind you
would think he should be able to do that.
Message has been deleted
Rupert
Apr 16, 2012, 8:04:51 AM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 1:14 pm, pale male <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> I don't know what values he's talking about. If by values he means
> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position, but I
> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
> distinction between two values. Value judgments about life are beyond
> the purview of animals, as far as I'm aware.
Well, I don't know what he's talking about either, and I believe that
this is because he has failed to explain himself adequately. He
obviously finds it very remarkable that someone with a PhD in maths
could fail to understand what he's talking about. But there you go.
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position, but I
> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
> distinction between two values. Value judgments about life are beyond
> the purview of animals, as far as I'm aware.
Well, I don't know what he's talking about either, and I believe that
this is because he has failed to explain himself adequately. He
obviously finds it very remarkable that someone with a PhD in maths
could fail to understand what he's talking about. But there you go.
Message has been deleted
George Plimpton
Apr 16, 2012, 10:53:16 AM4/16/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted of breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Doctor Rupert
>
> So I suggested that doc ask his dad, but his dad couldn't figure it out either.
> The value we're referring to is in regards to value for the being who is
> experiencing the life, not to the being's value to society or anything like
> that....
It is not a "benefit" for any being to be born and "get to experience
life," no matter what the quality of that life is. Coming into
existence is not a benefit, Fuckwit - it cannot be one. A benefit is
something that *improves* the welfare of an entity with an experiential
reality, but coming into existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
welfare, it doesn't improve it.
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Doctor Rupert
>
> So I suggested that doc ask his dad, but his dad couldn't figure it out either.
> The value we're referring to is in regards to value for the being who is
> experiencing the life, not to the being's value to society or anything like
> that....
life," no matter what the quality of that life is. Coming into
existence is not a benefit, Fuckwit - it cannot be one. A benefit is
something that *improves* the welfare of an entity with an experiential
reality, but coming into existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
welfare, it doesn't improve it.
dh
Apr 16, 2012, 6:42:09 PM4/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>I don't know what values he's talking about. If by values he means
>experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
It's saying the exact same thing.
>experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
>but I
>doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
>distinction between two values.
breath all day every day. The value of life for them is still what it is
regardless of whether or not they consider it specifically, just as the value of
the atmosphere etc...................... is still what it is regardless of
whether or not they consider it specifically.
dh
Apr 16, 2012, 6:42:18 PM4/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
What did I tell you?
>He
>obviously finds it very remarkable that someone with a PhD in maths
>could fail to understand what he's talking about.
That's because of several things. One of them is because it's a concept I've
been aware of for as long as I can remember. Another is that we discussed it
specifically in regards to human slavery when I was in sixth grade and none of
the kids were too stupid to understand it as you claim to be. Another of course
is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
than that they not live at all" - Rupert
wrote:
>He
>obviously finds it very remarkable that someone with a PhD in maths
>could fail to understand what he's talking about.
been aware of for as long as I can remember. Another is that we discussed it
specifically in regards to human slavery when I was in sixth grade and none of
the kids were too stupid to understand it as you claim to be. Another of course
is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
than that they not live at all" - Rupert
dh
Apr 16, 2012, 6:42:29 PM4/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:44:47 +0100, pale male <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
><rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
><rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Probably not, since he's not up to the level that the kids in my sixth grade
class were regarding something as simple as the value of life to an individual.
>Now that's remarkable because I've never met
>anyone with a PhD in such a solid discipline like maths before.
I don't believe you have yet either.
>If I
>try to imagine an X axis from -10 through 0 and up to +10 I wouldn't
>know which axis label to place my life value at, or yours, or Stephen
>Hawkins'. So I doubt an animal could. I wouldn't know how to make a
>distinction between those values to the left of zero and those to the
>right, either, so I don't know how dh@ can on behalf of animals from
>their point of view.
From having been around them and observed them. Some animals who seem
stressed or/and are constantly suffering from some cause or causes would have
lives of negative value, which is the way eliminationists want us to feel about
all livestock animals. Others who do not seem stressed and are not suffering
appear to have lives of positive value. Actually even those which appear to
those of us who are capable of appreciating a distinction, to be enduring lives
of negative value, might often actually be living lives of positive value TO
THEM since often even those in the worst conditions still will try very hard to
survive. This topic is obviously above your head and WAAAAY over Doctor
Rupert's, but hopefully some people will come along who are able to comprehend
easily, since it's so easy grade school children can comprehend it.
George Plimpton
Apr 16, 2012, 7:11:57 PM4/16/12
to
Causing them to exist, or "get to experience life", is not doing them
any favor, Fuckwit.
Rupert
Apr 17, 2012, 2:43:12 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 12:42 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
It is not a question of being too stupid. Introducing a new
distinction requires a definition. You haven't given a satisfactory
definition.
Did your teacher use the exact phrase "lives of positive value"? Did
she make any attempt to define it?
If she didn't, then you were just manifesting your failure to
understand that a phrase like that requires a definition.
> Another of course
> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>
> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place." - Rupert
>
> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place." - Rupert
>
> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
Except that this is obviously not the definition you have in mind,
because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
can speak of "the outcome being better".
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
distinction requires a definition. You haven't given a satisfactory
definition.
Did your teacher use the exact phrase "lives of positive value"? Did
she make any attempt to define it?
If she didn't, then you were just manifesting your failure to
understand that a phrase like that requires a definition.
> Another of course
> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>
> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place." - Rupert
>
> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place." - Rupert
>
> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
can speak of "the outcome being better".
dh
Apr 17, 2012, 5:19:23 PM4/17/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
She probably said "good" lives, and she did let us know that we all decide
for ourselves what seems good and what doesn't, which you are COMPLETELY unable
to do, so you claim.
>> Another of course
>> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
>> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
>> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
>> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>>
>> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
>> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
>> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
>> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
>> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>
>Except that this is obviously not the definition you have in mind,
>because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
>can speak of "the outcome being better".
I can, but also realise that you're trying to force a comparison with
nothing, unless there's something else you have in mind that it may be better
than. My definition does not depend on a comparison with nothing. By using your
definition you're trying to trick me into the position that you can say we can't
make a comparison with nothing since we can't imagine what it's like. It's an
old trick that the Goos have been using for years. We can still see that some
lives do appear to be of positive value to many beings REGARDLESS of anything to
do with whether or not nothing is as good or even better, which is why I use
that term and why you don't like it.
wrote:
for ourselves what seems good and what doesn't, which you are COMPLETELY unable
to do, so you claim.
>> Another of course
>> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
>> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
>> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
>> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>>
>> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
>> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
>> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
>> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
>> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>
>Except that this is obviously not the definition you have in mind,
>because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
>can speak of "the outcome being better".
nothing, unless there's something else you have in mind that it may be better
than. My definition does not depend on a comparison with nothing. By using your
definition you're trying to trick me into the position that you can say we can't
make a comparison with nothing since we can't imagine what it's like. It's an
old trick that the Goos have been using for years. We can still see that some
lives do appear to be of positive value to many beings REGARDLESS of anything to
do with whether or not nothing is as good or even better, which is why I use
that term and why you don't like it.
dh
Apr 17, 2012, 5:19:42 PM4/17/12
to
equivalent or superior to total elimination, Goo, which is why you people hate
it.
Rupert
Apr 17, 2012, 5:59:56 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 11:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
No, I never claimed any such thing. Of course I am able to grasp when
a life is good when is isn't. I have never suggested otherwise. That
is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
different.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Another of course
> >> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
> >> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
> >> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
> >> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>
> >> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
> >> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
> >> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> >> in their place." - Rupert
>
> >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
> >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
> >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> >> in their place." - Rupert
>
> >> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
> >> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
> >> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>
> >Except that this is obviously not the definition you have in mind,
> >because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
> >can speak of "the outcome being better".
>
> I can, but also realise that you're trying to force a comparison with
> nothing, unless there's something else you have in mind that it may be better
> than.
Two different outcomes, two different world-histories, in which
different sets of organisms exist, are being compared.
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
a life is good when is isn't. I have never suggested otherwise. That
is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
value" is a meaningful one. You have just admitted that you were being
dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
between lives of positive value and lives of negative value means
anything. The stories about your sixth grade class have no bearing on
the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
different.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Another of course
> >> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
> >> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
> >> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
> >> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>
> >> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
> >> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
> >> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> >> in their place." - Rupert
>
> >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
> >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
> >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> >> in their place." - Rupert
>
> >> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
> >> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
> >> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>
> >Except that this is obviously not the definition you have in mind,
> >because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
> >can speak of "the outcome being better".
>
> I can, but also realise that you're trying to force a comparison with
> nothing, unless there's something else you have in mind that it may be better
> than.
different sets of organisms exist, are being compared.
George Plimpton
Apr 17, 2012, 7:23:00 PM4/17/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, illegal fighting dog breeder, lied:
>>>
>>>> If by values he means
>>>> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>>>> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
>>>
>>> It's saying the exact same thing.
>>>
>>>> but I
>>>> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
>>>> distinction between two values.
>>>
>>> So do I. I doubt they think about the Earth's atmoshpere too, but they still
>>> breath all day every day. The value of life for them is still what it is
>>> regardless of whether or not they consider it specifically,
>>
superior to not wanting any of them to live.
>>>
>>>> If by values he means
>>>> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>>>> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
>>>
>>> It's saying the exact same thing.
>>>
>>>> but I
>>>> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
>>>> distinction between two values.
>>>
>>> So do I. I doubt they think about the Earth's atmoshpere too, but they still
>>> breath all day every day. The value of life for them is still what it is
>>> regardless of whether or not they consider it specifically,
>>
>> None of that is any moral reason to cause them to exist, Fuckwit. Causing them
>> to exist, or "get to experience life", is not doing them any favor, Fuckwit.
>
>> to exist, or "get to experience life", is not doing them any favor, Fuckwit.
>
> It's reason why providing decent AW can easily be considered ethically
> equivalent or superior to total elimination
No, Goo. It's no reason at all. Causing them to live is not ethically
> equivalent or superior to total elimination
superior to not wanting any of them to live.
dh
Apr 18, 2012, 11:56:57 AM4/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
What are your criteria? Explain in detail.
>I have never suggested otherwise.
You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
quality of their lives TO THEM.
>That
>is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
>distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
>value" is a meaningful one. You have just admitted that you were being
>dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
>attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
>between lives of positive value and lives of negative value means
>anything. The stories about your sixth grade class have no bearing on
>the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
>different.
No she wasn't, but if you want us to try to pretend it was different then
you need to try to explain how you want us to think it was different. Try:
>> >> Another of course
>> >> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
>> >> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
>> >> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
>> >> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>>
>> >> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>> >> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>> >> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> >> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
>> >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
>> >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> >> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> >> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
>> >> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
>> >> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>
>> >Except that this is obviously not the definition you have in mind,
>> >because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
>> >can speak of "the outcome being better".
>>
>> I can, but also realise that you're trying to force a comparison with
>> nothing, unless there's something else you have in mind that it may be better
>> than.
>
>Two different outcomes, two different world-histories, in which
>different sets of organisms exist, are being compared.
No they're not. That's a completely different topic. Beings who enjoy lives
of positive value do so REGARDLESS of whether or not other existing beings do,
and of course regardless of anything at all to do with possible potential beings
in the future.
wrote:
>I have never suggested otherwise.
being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
quality of their lives TO THEM.
>That
>is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
>distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
>value" is a meaningful one. You have just admitted that you were being
>dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
>attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
>between lives of positive value and lives of negative value means
>anything. The stories about your sixth grade class have no bearing on
>the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
>different.
you need to try to explain how you want us to think it was different. Try:
>> >> Another of course
>> >> is that you HAVE thought about it and determined that all livestock animals live
>> >> lives of negative value, otherwise you wouldn't want them to cease to exist.
>> >> Another is that you HAVE thought about it and come to the opposite conclusion as
>> >> well, substituting in your brain "better" for "lives of positive value" :
>>
>> >> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>> >> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>> >> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> >> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
>> >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
>> >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> >> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> >> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
>> >> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
>> >> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>
>> >Except that this is obviously not the definition you have in mind,
>> >because you do not believe there is any meaningful sense in which one
>> >can speak of "the outcome being better".
>>
>> I can, but also realise that you're trying to force a comparison with
>> nothing, unless there's something else you have in mind that it may be better
>> than.
>
>Two different outcomes, two different world-histories, in which
>different sets of organisms exist, are being compared.
of positive value do so REGARDLESS of whether or not other existing beings do,
and of course regardless of anything at all to do with possible potential beings
in the future.
dh
Apr 18, 2012, 11:58:25 AM4/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:23:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
It's the ONLY reason anyone has for hating it Goob, so eliminationists are
the only people with reason to hate it.
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If by values he means
>>>>> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>>>>> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
>>>>
>>>> It's saying the exact same thing.
>>>>
>>>>> but I
>>>>> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
>>>>> distinction between two values.
>>>>
>>>> So do I. I doubt they think about the Earth's atmoshpere too, but they still
>>>> breath all day every day. The value of life for them is still what it is
>>>> regardless of whether or not they consider it specifically,
>>>
>>>None of that is any moral reason to cause them to exist
>>
>>>>> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>>>>> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
>>>>
>>>> It's saying the exact same thing.
>>>>
>>>>> but I
>>>>> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
>>>>> distinction between two values.
>>>>
>>>> So do I. I doubt they think about the Earth's atmoshpere too, but they still
>>>> breath all day every day. The value of life for them is still what it is
>>>> regardless of whether or not they consider it specifically,
>>>
>>>None of that is any moral reason to cause them to exist
>>
>> It's reason why providing decent AW can easily be considered ethically
>>equivalent or superior to total elimination, Goo, which is why you people hate
>>it.
>
>No
>>it.
>
It's the ONLY reason anyone has for hating it Goob, so eliminationists are
the only people with reason to hate it.
George Plimpton
Apr 18, 2012, 12:15:10 PM4/18/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - THE Goo, and a convicted breeder of fighting
dogs - lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If by values he means
>>>>>> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>>>>>> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's saying the exact same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
>>>>>> distinction between two values.
>>>>>
>>>>> So do I. I doubt they think about the Earth's atmoshpere too, but they still
>>>>> breath all day every day. The value of life for them is still what it is
>>>>> regardless of whether or not they consider it specifically,
>>>>
Causing livestock animals to exist is *not* "ethically superior" [ha ha
ha ha ha!] to wanting them not to exist, Goo. That's just a fact.
Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
animals themselves.
dogs - lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If by values he means
>>>>>> experiences, as in "lives of positive experiences" and "lives of
>>>>>> negative experiences," that would be a better starting position,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's saying the exact same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> doubt animals can think about their lives like that and make a
>>>>>> distinction between two values.
>>>>>
>>>>> So do I. I doubt they think about the Earth's atmoshpere too, but they still
>>>>> breath all day every day. The value of life for them is still what it is
>>>>> regardless of whether or not they consider it specifically,
>>>>
>>>> None of that is any moral reason to cause them to exist, Fuckwit. Causing them
>>>> to exist, or "get to experience life", is not doing them any favor, Fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> to exist, or "get to experience life", is not doing them any favor, Fuckwit.
>>>
>>> It's reason why providing decent AW can easily be considered ethically
>>> equivalent or superior to total elimination
>>
>> No, Goo. It's no reason at all. Causing them to live is not ethically superior
>> to not wanting any of them to live.
>
>>
>> No, Goo. It's no reason at all. Causing them to live is not ethically superior
>> to not wanting any of them to live.
>
> It's the ONLY reason anyone has for hating it
It's no reason for anything, Goo.
Causing livestock animals to exist is *not* "ethically superior" [ha ha
ha ha ha!] to wanting them not to exist, Goo. That's just a fact.
Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
animals themselves.
Rupert
Apr 18, 2012, 1:42:14 PM4/18/12
to
On Apr 18, 5:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
The goodness of a life is connected with the opportunities for
satisfaction and fulfilment which that life contains.
> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>
> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>
I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
Also, you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
absolutist, and that Derek emailed my friend Angie on this account and
said that I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation NSW
(which I wasn't).
Also, being able to grasp when a life is good and when it is not so
good in no way entails that you must endorse doing whatever you please
to a creature just because you have provided it with a life which is
good on balance.
> >That
> >is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
> >distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
> >value" is a meaningful one. You have just admitted that you were being
> >dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
> >attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
> >between lives of positive value and lives of negative value means
> >anything. The stories about your sixth grade class have no bearing on
> >the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
> >different.
>
> No she wasn't, but if you want us to try to pretend it was different then
> you need to try to explain how you want us to think it was different. Try:
>
Using the phrase "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
value" implies that you have some criteria for determining what the
cut-off point is between a life of positive value and a life of
negative value. Talking about lives which are "good" and "not so good"
doesn't imply any such precise demarcation point.
It looks as though you didn't understand your teacher very well after
all.
My remark was correct. Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
satisfaction and fulfilment which that life contains.
> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>
> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>
have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
Also, you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
absolutist, and that Derek emailed my friend Angie on this account and
said that I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation NSW
(which I wasn't).
Also, being able to grasp when a life is good and when it is not so
good in no way entails that you must endorse doing whatever you please
to a creature just because you have provided it with a life which is
good on balance.
> >That
> >is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
> >distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
> >value" is a meaningful one. You have just admitted that you were being
> >dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
> >attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
> >between lives of positive value and lives of negative value means
> >anything. The stories about your sixth grade class have no bearing on
> >the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
> >different.
>
> No she wasn't, but if you want us to try to pretend it was different then
> you need to try to explain how you want us to think it was different. Try:
>
value" implies that you have some criteria for determining what the
cut-off point is between a life of positive value and a life of
negative value. Talking about lives which are "good" and "not so good"
doesn't imply any such precise demarcation point.
It looks as though you didn't understand your teacher very well after
all.
comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
Dutch
Apr 19, 2012, 4:52:20 AM4/19/12
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:b2pto7lrl8366essk...@4ax.com...
If we're "eliminationists" then why are we arguing with Rupert about
"speciesism"? An "eliminationist" would agree with Rupert and argue that we
cannot use animals as we do because to do so is being "speciesist" and
therefore immoral.
We're not ARAs, and you're OBVIOUSLY wrong about why we're against you.
"speciesism"? An "eliminationist" would agree with Rupert and argue that we
cannot use animals as we do because to do so is being "speciesist" and
therefore immoral.
We're not ARAs, and you're OBVIOUSLY wrong about why we're against you.
dh
Apr 23, 2012, 5:26:05 PM4/23/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
So to you the amount of suffering is meaningless provided a being gets
enough to eat, or whatever?
>> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>>
>> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
>> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
>> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>>
>
>I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
>have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
>good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
>extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
You TOLD ME specifically that you are clueless about it:
"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>Also, you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
>absolutist,
I sure don't, and so far don't believe it. Which animals would you allow?
I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
animals you would allow, and why.
>and that Derek emailed my friend Angie on this account and
>said that I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation NSW
>(which I wasn't).
>
>Also, being able to grasp when a life is good and when it is not so
>good in no way entails that you must endorse doing whatever you please
>to a creature just because you have provided it with a life which is
>good on balance.
>
>> >That
>> >is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
>> >distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
>> >value" is a meaningful one. You have just admitted that you were being
>> >dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
>> >attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
>> >between lives of positive value and lives of negative value means
>> >anything. The stories about your sixth grade class have no bearing on
>> >the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
>> >different.
>>
>> No she wasn't, but if you want us to try to pretend it was different then
>> you need to try to explain how you want us to think it was different. Try:
>>
>
>Using the phrase "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
>value" implies that you have some criteria for determining what the
>cut-off point is between a life of positive value and a life of
>negative value. Talking about lives which are "good" and "not so good"
>doesn't imply any such precise demarcation point.
Yes it damned sure DOES. You tell me what you want me to think the cut-off
point is between good and not so good, and do a better job than I've done
explaining to you since you've bitched so very very very much about what I told
you. Now it's YOUR TURN to try to do the job better. Go:
. . .
wrote:
enough to eat, or whatever?
>> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>>
>> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
>> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
>> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>>
>
>I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
>have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
>good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
>extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>Also, you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
>absolutist,
I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
animals you would allow, and why.
>and that Derek emailed my friend Angie on this account and
>said that I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation NSW
>(which I wasn't).
>
>Also, being able to grasp when a life is good and when it is not so
>good in no way entails that you must endorse doing whatever you please
>to a creature just because you have provided it with a life which is
>good on balance.
>
>> >That
>> >is an entirely different topic to the question of whether your alleged
>> >distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
>> >value" is a meaningful one. You have just admitted that you were being
>> >dishonest in using stories about your sixth grade class as a basis for
>> >attacking my statement that I don't believe that your distinction
>> >between lives of positive value and lives of negative value means
>> >anything. The stories about your sixth grade class have no bearing on
>> >the matter; your teacher was talking about something completely
>> >different.
>>
>> No she wasn't, but if you want us to try to pretend it was different then
>> you need to try to explain how you want us to think it was different. Try:
>>
>
>Using the phrase "lives of positive value" and "lives of negative
>value" implies that you have some criteria for determining what the
>cut-off point is between a life of positive value and a life of
>negative value. Talking about lives which are "good" and "not so good"
>doesn't imply any such precise demarcation point.
point is between good and not so good, and do a better job than I've done
explaining to you since you've bitched so very very very much about what I told
you. Now it's YOUR TURN to try to do the job better. Go:
. . .
>Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
>comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
Present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to refer to.
>comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
dh
Apr 23, 2012, 5:26:48 PM4/23/12
to
which you are doing. Duh.
>An "eliminationist" would agree with Rupert and argue that we
>cannot use animals as we do because to do so is being "speciesist" and
>therefore immoral.
>We're not ARAs, and you're OBVIOUSLY wrong about why we're against you.
oppose consideration of what results when decent AW is successful, which of
course is decent lives of positive value for billions of livestock animals.
DOOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!
dh
Apr 23, 2012, 5:26:59 PM4/23/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>animals themselves.
ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>animals themselves.
i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
George Plimpton
Apr 23, 2012, 5:42:24 PM4/23/12
to
I advocate eliminating livestock animals. You know this, and everyone
knows that you know it.
George Plimpton
Apr 23, 2012, 5:43:28 PM4/23/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted criminal fighting dog breeder, lied:
the animals themselves to want them to exist.
>
>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>> animals themselves.
>
> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
No, to *everyone*, Fuckwit. It is ethically meaningless with respect to
>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>> animals themselves.
>
> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
the animals themselves to want them to exist.
dh
Apr 24, 2012, 6:29:45 PM4/24/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>
Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>
>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>animals themselves.
>>
>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>animals themselves.
>>
>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>
>No, to *everyone*
>
Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
positive value for billions of animals Goob?
dh
Apr 24, 2012, 6:29:53 PM4/24/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose appreciating when livestock
animals experience decent lives of positive value, which you have spent over a
decade doing, Goo. Did you forget about those aspects of your position?
>(no such thing, anyway.)
That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell.
>>which you are doing. Duh.
>>
>>>An "eliminationist" would agree with Rupert and argue that we
>>>cannot use animals as we do because to do so is being "speciesist" and
>>>therefore immoral.
>>
>> Not if they're trying to pretend to be an elimination opponent. Duh again.
>>
>>>We're not ARAs, and you're OBVIOUSLY wrong about why we're against you.
>>
>> There is no reason for anyone who favores decent AW over elimination to
>>oppose consideration of what results when decent AW is successful, which of
>>course is decent lives of positive value for billions of livestock animals.
>>DOOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!
>
>We are not "eliminationists"
>>
>>>An "eliminationist" would agree with Rupert and argue that we
>>>cannot use animals as we do because to do so is being "speciesist" and
>>>therefore immoral.
>>
>> Not if they're trying to pretend to be an elimination opponent. Duh again.
>>
>>>We're not ARAs, and you're OBVIOUSLY wrong about why we're against you.
>>
>> There is no reason for anyone who favores decent AW over elimination to
>>oppose consideration of what results when decent AW is successful, which of
>>course is decent lives of positive value for billions of livestock animals.
>>DOOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!
>
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose appreciating when livestock
animals experience decent lives of positive value, which you have spent over a
decade doing, Goo. Did you forget about those aspects of your position?
>(no such thing, anyway.)
That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell.
George Plimpton
Apr 24, 2012, 6:53:32 PM4/24/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, a lying convicted fighting bird breeder, lied:
>>>
>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>> animals themselves.
>>>
>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>
choices into one, Goo.
The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another
choice: high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak)
or low welfare.
You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been
kicking your ass.
>>>
>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>> animals themselves.
>>>
>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>
>> No, to *everyone*
>
> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
> decent AW over elimination
False choice, Goo. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two
>
> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
> decent AW over elimination
choices into one, Goo.
The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another
choice: high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak)
or low welfare.
You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been
kicking your ass.
George Plimpton
Apr 24, 2012, 6:55:02 PM4/24/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, a lying convicted fighting bird breeder, lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
You're lying when you say we favor it.
>> (no such thing, anyway.)
>
> That's a lie only
dh
Apr 30, 2012, 6:41:41 PM4/30/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>
Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>
>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>
>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>
>>>No, to *everyone*
>>
>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>
>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>
>False choice
>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>
Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
YOU suggest Goob, and why?
dh
Apr 30, 2012, 6:41:58 PM4/30/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:55:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:52:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:b2pto7lrl8366essk...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:23:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell, Goo.
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:52:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:b2pto7lrl8366essk...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:23:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose appreciating when livestock
>>animals experience decent lives of positive value, which you have spent over a
>>decade doing, Goo. Did you forget about those aspects of your position?
>>
>>>(no such thing, anyway.)
>>animals experience decent lives of positive value, which you have spent over a
>>decade doing, Goo. Did you forget about those aspects of your position?
>>
>>
>> That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell.
>
>No such thing.
>
That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell, Goo.
George Plimpton
Apr 30, 2012, 8:03:56 PM4/30/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (cockfighting), lied:
>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>>>
livestock or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology -
providing them with "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW",
Fuckwit, you reveal your ignorance and fuckwittery.
There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>>>
>>>> No, to *everyone*, Fuckwit. It is ethically meaningless with respect to the animals
>>>> themselves to want them to exist.
>>>
>>>> themselves to want them to exist.
>>>
>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>
>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>
>> False choice, Goo. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices
>> into one, Goo.
>>
>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the choice
>> is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to keep breeding
>> them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice: high welfare (not
>> "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>
>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>
>> into one, Goo.
>>
>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the choice
>> is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to keep breeding
>> them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice: high welfare (not
>> "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>
>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>
> Those are the only choices I
It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating
livestock or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology -
providing them with "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW",
Fuckwit, you reveal your ignorance and fuckwittery.
There are two choices, Goo, not one.
George Plimpton
Apr 30, 2012, 8:07:00 PM4/30/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (cockfighting), lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> We are not in favor of the elimination of livestock, and you know it.
>> You're lying when you say we favor it.
>>
>>>
>> You're lying when you say we favor it.
>>
>>>
>>>> (no such thing, anyway.)
>>>
>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist
>>
>>>
>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist
>>
>> No such thing. "Eliminationist" isn't a word. It's ignorant cracker-speak.
>
>
> That's a lie only an eliminationist
It's not a word. You're an ignorant cracker who doesn't know proper
English.
dh
May 3, 2012, 12:53:31 PM5/3/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:07:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:55:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:52:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:b2pto7lrl8366essk...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:23:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
does Goo, and we know it.
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:55:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:52:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:b2pto7lrl8366essk...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:23:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose appreciating when livestock
>>>>animals experience decent lives of positive value, which you have spent over a
>>>>decade doing, Goo. Did you forget about those aspects of your position?
>>>>
>>>>>(no such thing, anyway.)
>>>>animals experience decent lives of positive value, which you have spent over a
>>>>decade doing, Goo. Did you forget about those aspects of your position?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell.
>>>
>>>No such thing.
>>
>> That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell, Goo.
>
>>>
>>>No such thing.
>>
>> That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell, Goo.
>
>It's not a word.
It represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
does Goo, and we know it.
dh
May 3, 2012, 12:53:36 PM5/3/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>
>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>
>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>
>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>
>>>False choice
>>
>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>
>>>False choice
>>
>> Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>
>It's a false choice
>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>
George Plimpton
May 3, 2012, 1:04:19 PM5/3/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (cockfighting), lied:
>>>> No such thing.
>>>
>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist
>>
>>>
>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist
>>
>> It's not a word. You're an ignorant cracker who doesn't know proper English.
>
> It represents what
>
George Plimpton
May 3, 2012, 1:07:22 PM5/3/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (cockfighting), lied:
>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>
>>>> False choice, Goo. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices
>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the choice
>>>> is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to keep breeding
>>>> them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice: high welfare (not
>>>> "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>
>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>
>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the choice
>>>> is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to keep breeding
>>>> them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice: high welfare (not
>>>> "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>
>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>
>>> Those are the only choices
>>
>>
>> It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating livestock
>>or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>
>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>
> What other choices
>>or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>
>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>
I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are
stupidly - and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is
*not* a choice between "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or
non-existence, Goo. Go back and read what I explained to you.
Rupert
May 4, 2012, 2:15:24 PM5/4/12
to
On Apr 24, 7:26 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Quite obviously I said no such thing.
> >> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>
> >> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
> >> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
> >> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>
> >I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
> >have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
> >good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
> >extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
>
> You TOLD ME specifically that you are clueless about it:
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
That is not telling you that I am clueless. It is expressing my
(correct) opinion that you have not provided a satisfactory definition
of the concept. It is sad that you have so much trouble comprehending
English.
> >Also, you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
> >absolutist,
>
> I sure don't, and so far don't believe it. Which animals would you allow?
> I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
> certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
> animals you would allow, and why.
>
As you ought to know, I have in the past expressed the view that
possibly some forms of animal agriculture, grass-fed beef being one
possible example, might cause no more harm than existing forms of
plant-based agriculture, and that I did not have grounds on which to
criticise these forms of agriculture. Derek then emailed my friend
Angie and told me I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation
(which I wasn't). You ought to know this. It happened while you were
here, and also I have told you all this quite recently.
The distinction between "good" and "not so good" is not a precise one.
You know well enough what the phrases would mean and it would be
pointless to explain it to you. There are no precise criteria for when
the phrases apply.
There would be some cases when native English speakers would widely
agree that one of the phrases applies, and there are some cases where
there would no be no consensus about the matter.
around.
I was referring to my remark "Two different outcomes, two different
world-histories, in which
different sets of organisms exist, are being compared." This remark
explains that it is not a question of trying to force a comparison
with nothing.
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> >> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>
> >> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
> >> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
> >> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>
> >I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
> >have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
> >good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
> >extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
>
> You TOLD ME specifically that you are clueless about it:
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
(correct) opinion that you have not provided a satisfactory definition
of the concept. It is sad that you have so much trouble comprehending
English.
> >Also, you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
> >absolutist,
>
> I sure don't, and so far don't believe it. Which animals would you allow?
> I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
> certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
> animals you would allow, and why.
>
possibly some forms of animal agriculture, grass-fed beef being one
possible example, might cause no more harm than existing forms of
plant-based agriculture, and that I did not have grounds on which to
criticise these forms of agriculture. Derek then emailed my friend
Angie and told me I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation
(which I wasn't). You ought to know this. It happened while you were
here, and also I have told you all this quite recently.
You know well enough what the phrases would mean and it would be
pointless to explain it to you. There are no precise criteria for when
the phrases apply.
There would be some cases when native English speakers would widely
agree that one of the phrases applies, and there are some cases where
there would no be no consensus about the matter.
. . .
>
> >Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
> >comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
>
> Present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to refer to.
It would be nice if you asked me politely, instead of ordering me
>
> >Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
> >comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
>
> Present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to refer to.
around.
I was referring to my remark "Two different outcomes, two different
world-histories, in which
different sets of organisms exist, are being compared." This remark
explains that it is not a question of trying to force a comparison
with nothing.
dh
May 6, 2012, 4:57:41 PM5/6/12
to
On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Are you or are you not capable of comprehending the fact that the amount of
suffering a being endures has an influence on the value of life to the being?
>> >> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>>
>> >> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
>> >> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
>> >> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>>
>> >I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
>> >have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
>> >good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
>> >extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
>>
>> You TOLD ME specifically that you are clueless about it:
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>
>That is not telling you that I am clueless.
Yes it is, and so far you have consistently demonstrated that indeed you are
clueless as you told me you are.
. . .
of positive value. You only have acted like you consider that some might,
without having decided in your mind that any actually do. That's a big jump for
a peron in your position I guess, but from my pov you still haven't accepted any
examples yet so you're still not where you act like you are.
Notice that when it's your turn you finally appear to understand what I've
been telling YOU the entire time, and what I told you our teacher told us 30+
years ago. Each person has to decide for himself...
>There would be some cases when native English speakers would widely
>agree that one of the phrases applies, and there are some cases where
>there would no be no consensus about the matter.
>. . .
>>
>> >Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
>> >comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
>>
>> Present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to refer to.
>
>It would be nice if you asked me politely, instead of ordering me
>around.
>
>I was referring to my remark "Two different outcomes, two different
>world-histories, in which
>different sets of organisms exist, are being compared." This remark
>explains that it is not a question of trying to force a comparison
>with nothing.
Yes it is. For the groups being considered it is existence or nothing. How
could you be unaware of that fact? Since I don't believe you could have been
unaware, much less that you still are now that I pointed it out to you, it seems
again there must be some dishonesty involved.
wrote:
suffering a being endures has an influence on the value of life to the being?
>> >> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>>
>> >> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
>> >> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
>> >> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>>
>> >I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
>> >have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
>> >good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
>> >extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
>>
>> You TOLD ME specifically that you are clueless about it:
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>
>That is not telling you that I am clueless.
clueless as you told me you are.
. . .
>> >you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
>> >absolutist,
>>
>> I sure don't, and so far don't believe it. Which animals would you allow?
>> I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
>> certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
>> animals you would allow, and why.
>>
>
>As you ought to know, I have in the past expressed the view that
>possibly some forms of animal agriculture, grass-fed beef being one
>possible example, might cause no more harm than existing forms of
>plant-based agriculture, and that I did not have grounds on which to
>criticise these forms of agriculture. Derek then emailed my friend
>Angie and told me I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation
>(which I wasn't). You ought to know this. It happened while you were
>here, and also I have told you all this quite recently.
You didn't say you can appreciate the fact that some livestock do have lives
>> >absolutist,
>>
>> I sure don't, and so far don't believe it. Which animals would you allow?
>> I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
>> certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
>> animals you would allow, and why.
>>
>
>As you ought to know, I have in the past expressed the view that
>possibly some forms of animal agriculture, grass-fed beef being one
>possible example, might cause no more harm than existing forms of
>plant-based agriculture, and that I did not have grounds on which to
>criticise these forms of agriculture. Derek then emailed my friend
>Angie and told me I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation
>(which I wasn't). You ought to know this. It happened while you were
>here, and also I have told you all this quite recently.
of positive value. You only have acted like you consider that some might,
without having decided in your mind that any actually do. That's a big jump for
a peron in your position I guess, but from my pov you still haven't accepted any
examples yet so you're still not where you act like you are.
been telling YOU the entire time, and what I told you our teacher told us 30+
years ago. Each person has to decide for himself...
>There would be some cases when native English speakers would widely
>agree that one of the phrases applies, and there are some cases where
>there would no be no consensus about the matter.
>. . .
>>
>> >Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
>> >comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
>>
>> Present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to refer to.
>
>It would be nice if you asked me politely, instead of ordering me
>around.
>
>I was referring to my remark "Two different outcomes, two different
>world-histories, in which
>different sets of organisms exist, are being compared." This remark
>explains that it is not a question of trying to force a comparison
>with nothing.
could you be unaware of that fact? Since I don't believe you could have been
unaware, much less that you still are now that I pointed it out to you, it seems
again there must be some dishonesty involved.
dh
May 6, 2012, 4:57:48 PM5/6/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>
>>>>>False choice
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>
>>>>>False choice
>>>>
>>>> Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>
>>>It's a false choice
>>
>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>
>I told you
>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>
>>>It's a false choice
>>
>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>
Try telling me now Goo. Go:
dh
May 6, 2012, 4:57:56 PM5/6/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:04:19 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:07:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:55:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:52:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:b2pto7lrl8366essk...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:23:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
it represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
does and we know it.
>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:07:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:55:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:52:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:b2pto7lrl8366essk...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:23:00 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:19:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2012 3:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +0100, pale male<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell.
>>>>>
>>>>>No such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist would have reason to tell, Goo.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not a word.
>>
>>
>> It represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
>>does Goo, and we know it.
>
>>does Goo, and we know it.
>
>It's not a word.
Regardless of whether or not it's in your favorite dictionary Goobernicus,
it represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
does and we know it.
George Plimpton
May 6, 2012, 11:42:55 PM5/6/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (abuse of animals), lied:
>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False choice. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices
Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are the only choices
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating livestock
>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>
>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>
>>> What other choices
>>
>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>> read what I explained to you.
>
> Try telling me now
>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>
>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>
>>> What other choices
>>
>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>> read what I explained to you.
>
Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
explained to you, Goo. Now.
George Plimpton
May 6, 2012, 11:43:15 PM5/6/12
to
dh
May 9, 2012, 2:47:43 PM5/9/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
>>>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a false choice
>>>>
>>>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>
>>>I told you
>>
>> Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>
>Go back and
>>>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a false choice
>>>>
>>>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>
>>>I told you
>>
>> Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>
LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
dh
May 9, 2012, 2:47:52 PM5/9/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:43:15 -0700, the Goober wrote:
>>does and we know it.
>
>It's
It represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
does and we know it, Goober.
>> Regardless of whether or not it's in your favorite dictionary Goobernicus,
>>it represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
>>does and we know it.
>
>It's
It represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
George Plimpton
May 9, 2012, 4:32:29 PM5/9/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (abuse of animals), lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> False choice. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices
>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those are the only choices
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating livestock
>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>
>>> Try telling me now
>>
>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo. I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I explained to you, Goo. Now.
>
> LOL!!! I mean:
>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>
>>> Try telling me now
>>
>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo. I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I explained to you, Goo. Now.
>
George Plimpton
May 9, 2012, 4:33:47 PM5/9/12
to
>>>> It's not a word.
>>>
>>> Regardless of
>>
>> It's not a word, Goo. It's just cracker jerking off.
>>>
>>> Regardless of
>>
>
> It represents what
It's not a word, Goo. It's bullshit.
Rupert
May 9, 2012, 8:16:35 PM5/9/12
to
On May 7, 6:57 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Of course.
> >> >> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>
> >> >> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
> >> >> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
> >> >> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>
> >> >I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
> >> >have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
> >> >good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
> >> >extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
>
> >> You TOLD ME specifically that you are clueless about it:
>
> >> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> >> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> >That is not telling you that I am clueless.
>
> Yes it is, and so far you have consistently demonstrated that indeed you are
> clueless as you told me you are.
>
You are a fool.
Yes, but the phrase "lives of positive value" is not a standard one
and suggests that there are precise criteria for where to draw the
line. Hence asking you for a definition, and speculating that you had
no precise distinction in mind when you were unable to provide a
satisfactory definition, was reasonable. And that speculation is now
indeed fully vindicated: you had no precise distinction in mind.
When you say "each person has to decide for himself" you are basically
conceding that it is not a precisely defined distinction, which is
pretty much what I am saying, in that quote from me where I say I
don't believe that it means anything, which you like to mock so much.
I believe I might have pointed this out before.
> >There would be some cases when native English speakers would widely
> >agree that one of the phrases applies, and there are some cases where
> >there would no be no consensus about the matter.
> >. . .
>
> >> >Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
> >> >comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
>
> >> Present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to refer to.
>
> >It would be nice if you asked me politely, instead of ordering me
> >around.
>
> >I was referring to my remark "Two different outcomes, two different
> >world-histories, in which
> >different sets of organisms exist, are being compared." This remark
> >explains that it is not a question of trying to force a comparison
> >with nothing.
>
> Yes it is. For the groups being considered it is existence or nothing. How
> could you be unaware of that fact? Since I don't believe you could have been
> unaware, much less that you still are now that I pointed it out to you, it seems
> again there must be some dishonesty involved.
You cannot meaningfully compare an organism's level of well-being with
nonexistence. I have never suggested otherwise. Comparing two
different outcomes in which two different sets of organisms exist is
not comparing a certain level of well-being with nonexistence.
Nonexistence is not a state in which an organism can be.
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >I have never suggested otherwise.
>
> >> >> You sure have, and you have indicated otherwise by your own behavior, like
> >> >> being completely opposed to the raising of animals for food regardless of the
> >> >> quality of their lives TO THEM.
>
> >> >I have absolutely not ever said anything which would entail that I
> >> >have difficulty grasping when a life is good and when a life is not so
> >> >good. If you believe otherwise then that is evidence of
> >> >extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills on your part.
>
> >> You TOLD ME specifically that you are clueless about it:
>
> >> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> >> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> >That is not telling you that I am clueless.
>
> Yes it is, and so far you have consistently demonstrated that indeed you are
> clueless as you told me you are.
>
. . .
>
> >> >you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
> >> >absolutist,
>
> >> I sure don't, and so far don't believe it. Which animals would you allow?
> >> I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
> >> certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
> >> animals you would allow, and why.
>
> >As you ought to know, I have in the past expressed the view that
> >possibly some forms of animal agriculture, grass-fed beef being one
> >possible example, might cause no more harm than existing forms of
> >plant-based agriculture, and that I did not have grounds on which to
> >criticise these forms of agriculture. Derek then emailed my friend
> >Angie and told me I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation
> >(which I wasn't). You ought to know this. It happened while you were
> >here, and also I have told you all this quite recently.
>
> You didn't say you can appreciate the fact that some livestock do have lives
> of positive value.
Because you had given no satisfactory definition of the term.
>
> >> >you know that my opposition to animal agriculture is not
> >> >absolutist,
>
> >> I sure don't, and so far don't believe it. Which animals would you allow?
> >> I've asked you that before but you could never answer, meaning you almost
> >> certainly can't answer now either. But if you can, then let us know which
> >> animals you would allow, and why.
>
> >As you ought to know, I have in the past expressed the view that
> >possibly some forms of animal agriculture, grass-fed beef being one
> >possible example, might cause no more harm than existing forms of
> >plant-based agriculture, and that I did not have grounds on which to
> >criticise these forms of agriculture. Derek then emailed my friend
> >Angie and told me I shouldn't be on the committee of Animal Liberation
> >(which I wasn't). You ought to know this. It happened while you were
> >here, and also I have told you all this quite recently.
>
> You didn't say you can appreciate the fact that some livestock do have lives
> of positive value.
and suggests that there are precise criteria for where to draw the
line. Hence asking you for a definition, and speculating that you had
no precise distinction in mind when you were unable to provide a
satisfactory definition, was reasonable. And that speculation is now
indeed fully vindicated: you had no precise distinction in mind.
When you say "each person has to decide for himself" you are basically
conceding that it is not a precisely defined distinction, which is
pretty much what I am saying, in that quote from me where I say I
don't believe that it means anything, which you like to mock so much.
I believe I might have pointed this out before.
> >There would be some cases when native English speakers would widely
> >agree that one of the phrases applies, and there are some cases where
> >there would no be no consensus about the matter.
> >. . .
>
> >> >Your suggestion that I was "trying to force a
> >> >comparison with nothing" was false, for reasons given in my remark.
>
> >> Present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to refer to.
>
> >It would be nice if you asked me politely, instead of ordering me
> >around.
>
> >I was referring to my remark "Two different outcomes, two different
> >world-histories, in which
> >different sets of organisms exist, are being compared." This remark
> >explains that it is not a question of trying to force a comparison
> >with nothing.
>
> Yes it is. For the groups being considered it is existence or nothing. How
> could you be unaware of that fact? Since I don't believe you could have been
> unaware, much less that you still are now that I pointed it out to you, it seems
> again there must be some dishonesty involved.
nonexistence. I have never suggested otherwise. Comparing two
different outcomes in which two different sets of organisms exist is
not comparing a certain level of well-being with nonexistence.
Nonexistence is not a state in which an organism can be.
dh
May 14, 2012, 4:35:41 PM5/14/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:29 -0700, the Goober wussed yet again:
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>
>>>>>I told you
>>>>
>
>G
I challenge you to try again Goob. What other choices do YOU suggest
Gooberdoodle, and WHY?
(correct prediction: once again the Goober is incapable of answering the
challenge)
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
>>>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a false choice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I told you
>>>>
>>>> Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>>>
>>>Go back and
>>
>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>
>>>Go back and
>>
>
>G
I challenge you to try again Goob. What other choices do YOU suggest
Gooberdoodle, and WHY?
(correct prediction: once again the Goober is incapable of answering the
challenge)
dh
May 14, 2012, 4:39:49 PM5/14/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:33:47 -0700, Goo continued trying to defend elimination:
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:43:15 -0700, Goo tried to defend elimination:
It represents what they want to accomplish far better than the misnomer they
dishonestly abuse Goo, and WE KNOW IT!
>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:43:15 -0700, Goo tried to defend elimination:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:56 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:04:19 -0700, Goo tried to defend elimination:
>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:56 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:07:00 -0700, Goo tried to defend elimination:
>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:55:02 -0700, Goo tried to defend elimination:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:42:24 -0700, Goo tried to defend elimination:
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
>>>>>>does Goo, and we know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>does Goo, and we know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not a word.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of whether or not it's in your favorite dictionary Goobernicus,
>>>>it represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
>>>>does and we know it.
>>>
>>>It's
>>
>> It represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
>>does and we know it, Goober.
>
>It's not
>>>>it represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
>>>>does and we know it.
>>>
>>>It's
>>
>> It represents what eliminationists want to do far better than the misnomer
>>does and we know it, Goober.
>
It represents what they want to accomplish far better than the misnomer they
dishonestly abuse Goo, and WE KNOW IT!
George Plimpton
May 14, 2012, 7:53:45 PM5/14/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, chronic liar, lied again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>
No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone, Goo - you can't. You are no
challenge at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> False choice. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices
>>>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those are the only choices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating livestock
>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What other choices
>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try telling me now
>>>>
>>>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try telling me now
>>>>
>>>> Go back and
>>>
>>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>
>>>
>>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>
>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>
> I challenge you to
>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>
No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone, Goo - you can't. You are no
challenge at all.
George Plimpton
May 15, 2012, 12:35:30 AM5/15/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, chronic liar, lied:
word.
>>>>>>>>>> No such thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a lie only an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not a word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It represents what eliminationists
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It represents what eliminationists
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of
>>>>
>>>> It's not a word, Goo. It's just cracker jerking off.
>>>
>>> It represents
>>
>>>
>>> It represents
>>
>> It's not a word, Goo. It's bullshit.
>
> It represents what
It's not a word, Goo. It's bullshit.
Give it up, Goo. It's not a word, and it will not be acknowledged as a
>
> It represents what
It's not a word, Goo. It's bullshit.
word.
dh
May 16, 2012, 4:21:05 PM5/16/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:53:45 -0700, the Goober wussed on:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:35:41 -0400, dh@. continued to challenge:
correctly predicted that you are incapable of answering the challenge. You
proved me correct yourself, Goob.
AGAIN I repeat the challenge:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:35:41 -0400, dh@. continued to challenge:
>
>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:29 -0700, the Goober wussed yet again:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:29 -0700, the Goober wussed yet again:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's a false choice
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I told you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>Go back and
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>
>>>G
>>
>> I challenge you to try again Goob. What other choices do YOU suggest
>>Gooberdoodle, and WHY?
>>
>>(correct prediction: once again the Goober is incapable of answering the
>>challenge)
>
>>
>> I challenge you to try again Goob. What other choices do YOU suggest
>>Gooberdoodle, and WHY?
>>
>>(correct prediction: once again the Goober is incapable of answering the
>>challenge)
>
>No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone
In contrast to that most blatant of lies Goo, I did challenge you and also
correctly predicted that you are incapable of answering the challenge. You
proved me correct yourself, Goob.
AGAIN I repeat the challenge:
George Plimpton
May 16, 2012, 7:35:51 PM5/16/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, chronic liar, lied again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*, Fuckwit. It is ethically meaningless with respect to the animals themselves to want them to exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> False choice. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices
>>>>>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those are the only choices I suggest to people
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating livestock
>>>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What other choices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What other choices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try telling me now Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>
>>> I challenge you
>>
>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>
>>> I challenge you
>>
>> No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone, Goo - you can't. You are no challenge at all.
>
>
> In contrast to that most blatant of lies
You have never "challenged" anyone, Goo. You can't. You simply are
incapable of it.
dh
May 21, 2012, 8:10:21 PM5/21/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:35:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:21:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:53:45 -0700, the Goober wussed on:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:35:41 -0400, dh@. continued to challenge:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:29 -0700, the Goober wussed yet again:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL!!! Your ineptitude is hilarious Goober! You have outstupided yourself
yet again by pretending you can suggest other choices Goob while being
completely unable to say what else you suggest...LOL....
>On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:21:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:53:45 -0700, the Goober wussed on:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:35:41 -0400, dh@. continued to challenge:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:29 -0700, the Goober wussed yet again:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>decent AW over elimination, that decent AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>positive value for billions of animals Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>False choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are the only choices I suggest to people Goo. What other choices do
>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's a false choice
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I told you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Go back and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>
>>>>>G
>>>>
>>>> I challenge you to try again Goob. What other choices do YOU suggest
>>>>Gooberdoodle, and WHY?
>>>>
>>>>(correct prediction: once again the Goober is incapable of answering the
>>>>challenge)
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's a false choice
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I told you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try telling me now Goo. Go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Go back and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! I mean: What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>>>>>
>>>>>G
>>>>
>>>> I challenge you to try again Goob. What other choices do YOU suggest
>>>>Gooberdoodle, and WHY?
>>>>
>>>>(correct prediction: once again the Goober is incapable of answering the
>>>>challenge)
>>>
>>>No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone
>>
>>
>> In contrast to that most blatant of lies Goo, I did challenge you and also
>>correctly predicted that you are incapable of answering the challenge. You
>>proved me correct yourself, Goob.
>>
>> AGAIN I repeat the challenge:
>>
>>What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>
>You
>>correctly predicted that you are incapable of answering the challenge. You
>>proved me correct yourself, Goob.
>>
>> AGAIN I repeat the challenge:
>>
>>What other choices do YOU suggest Goob, and why?
>
LOL!!! Your ineptitude is hilarious Goober! You have outstupided yourself
yet again by pretending you can suggest other choices Goob while being
completely unable to say what else you suggest...LOL....
Mr.Smartypants
May 21, 2012, 11:00:57 PM5/21/12
to
outstupidification.
George Plimpton
May 22, 2012, 12:25:19 AM5/22/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (various charges pertaining to
animals), lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
animals), lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*, Fuckwit. It is ethically meaningless with respect to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals themselves to want them to exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals themselves to want them to exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False choice. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are the only choices I suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What other choices do
>>>>>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>>>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try telling me now
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>>>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try telling me now
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!! I mean:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!! I mean:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge you
>>>>
>>>> No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone, Goo - you can't. You are no challenge at all.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that
>>
>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge you
>>>>
>>>> No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone, Goo - you can't. You are no challenge at all.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that
>>
>> You have never "challenged" anyone, Goo. You can't. You simply are incapable of it.
>
> LOL!!! Your
>
dh
May 23, 2012, 3:00:07 PM5/23/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:25:19 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:10:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:35:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:21:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:53:45 -0700, the Goober wussed on:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:35:41 -0400, dh@. continued to challenge:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:29 -0700, the Goober wussed yet again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>You have
No Goo, I've only suggested the choices of decent AW or not raising them at
all. YOU are the one who acts like you have other suggestions though you've made
it appear you have none, showing that you've outstupided yourself again Goob.
>On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:10:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:35:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:21:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:53:45 -0700, the Goober wussed on:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:35:41 -0400, dh@. continued to challenge:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:29 -0700, the Goober wussed yet again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 14:47:43 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:42:55 -0700, the Goober wussed again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:57:48 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:07:22 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:53:36 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:03:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:53:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over providing lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. providing decent AW, you stupid Goober. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, to *everyone*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
No Goo, I've only suggested the choices of decent AW or not raising them at
all. YOU are the one who acts like you have other suggestions though you've made
it appear you have none, showing that you've outstupided yourself again Goob.
dh
May 23, 2012, 3:00:23 PM5/23/12
to
though he amusingly acts like he wants people to believe he's thinking about
some.
George Plimpton
May 23, 2012, 3:11:32 PM5/23/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (various charges pertaining to
animals), lied:
animals), lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Causing them to exist is ethically meaningless with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY to people who favor elimination over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, to *everyone*, Fuckwit. It is ethically meaningless with respect to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals themselves to want them to exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals themselves to want them to exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want anyone to think it would be meaningless to people who favor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decent AW over elimination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False choice. That's established. You're invalidly collapsing two choices into one, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first choice is, keep breeding livestock or eliminate them. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is to eliminate, there is no second choice. If the choice is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep breeding them, then and *ONLY* then we're faced with another choice:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high welfare (not "decent AW" - that's fucking cracker-speak) or low welfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You lose, Goo. You lost 13 years ago. That's how long I've been kicking your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are the only choices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a false choice, Goo. The choice is not between eliminating livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two choices, Goo, not one.It's a false choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or - in your shitty, wretched, fuckwitted terminology - providing them with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "decent AW" [sic]. When you write "decent AW", Fuckwit, you reveal your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and fuckwittery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What other choices do
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I told you what they are, Goo. I identified the two choices you are stupidly -
>>>>>>>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>>>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>>>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try telling me now
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! I mean:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone, Goo - you can't. You are no challenge at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have never "challenged" anyone, Goo. You can't. You simply are incapable of it.
>>>
>> You have never "challenged" anyone, Goo. You can't. You simply are incapable of it.
>
> No George,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and unsuccessfully - trying to collapse into one. It is *not* a choice between
>>>>>>>>>>>> "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" or non-existence, Goo. Go back and
>>>>>>>>>>>> read what I explained to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try telling me now
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! I mean:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go back and read what I explained to you. You don't waste my time, Goo.
>>>>>>>> I tell you how to spend yours, and you do it. Go back and read what I
>>>>>>>> explained to you, Goo. Now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. You do not *ever* challenge anyone, Goo - you can't. You are no challenge at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have never "challenged" anyone, Goo. You can't. You simply are incapable of it.
>>>
>> You have never "challenged" anyone, Goo. You can't. You simply are incapable of it.
>
Yes, Goo: you are mentally incapable of challenging anyone. You simply
don't have the intellect to do it.
0 new messages